Criminal Tendencies- Are They The Result of Antisocial Behavior in Children?

Psychology 365

Dr. Moy Salinas

May 10, 2002

INTRODUCTION/HYPOTHESES

Violent and antisocial behavior exhibited by children in the world today, can no longer be ignored. Media coverage of events involving aggressive acts of our youth in such high-exposure cases like the Columbine High School massacre, leads us to questionthe origins of such behavior. Sadly, American youth in society have become associated with violence as both perpetrator and victim. “Crime statistics show that adolescents are responsible for approximately 29% of all crimes and 17% of violent crimes (FBI,1992). Commensurate with their rates of offending, adolescents also have a high rate of victimization. For example, homicide has emerged as the second leading cause of death among adolescents, and those aged 15-34 are at highest risk of non-fatal assaults (cited in Mercury et al., 1993).

The hypothesis we researched was whether antisocial behavior in children leads to criminal tendencies in adolescent and adulthood. Although, children may vary in degree of severity and frequency, the behavior occurs across multiple settings. Dependent on parental influences and intervention early in life, the extent of the child’s future will eventually progress to a life of crime and delinquency.

It is of vital importance to identify antisocial behavior in youths, in order to provide intervention and support services for the child, in hopes of preventing long term criminal behavior. Antisocial behavior, as defined by Kazdin, Siegel and Bass (1992) includes aggressive acts, theft, vandalism, fire setting, lying, truancy, running away and other acts that violate major social rules and expectations. A persistent pattern of antisocial behavior is referred to as conduct disorder.

CASE STUDIES/CAUSES AND EFFECTS

Children are often a product of their upbringing. The indelible mark a parent leaves on a child becomes apparent in later years. In 1966, 165 students from the University of Maryland participated in Siegmann Study on father absence and antisocial behavior. The subjects were first asked to indicate iftheir father was ever away from home due to military service. Secondly, they had to document what years their father was away and if there were any other causes for the father to be absent (Siegman, 1996 p.71). Once they were grouped, each individual wasgiven an antisocial behavior inventory. Some of the questions referred to antisocial behavior in childhood, adolescence and adulthood. Included were also questions about parental disobedience. It was proven that the subjects with fathers absent had much higher scores on the antisocial behavior inventory. It was also shown that defiance of parental authority is related to some forms of antisocial behavior.

Another study conducted by Pfiffner, McBurnett and Rathuz (2001), studied both fathers that were in the home and those that were absent. They compared the antisocial behavior of the children with the father living at home to those that had the father absent. They also examined if a parent with antisocial behavior has an influence on the conduct disorder in the child. Based on the father’s status ( in the home, out of house, or untrackable), 128 participants were divided into three groups. In the families where the fathers were absent, the mothers were asked to document the behavior of the father. Also, the parents and their teachers, were asked to fill out a child behavior rating scale. The child was administered an IQ test and then was asked to complete a self-report on an antisocial behavior scale. The parents antisocial behavior was evaluated by interviews. For the untrackable group, the mother answered all the questions. It was discovered that one-third of all the subjects, both mother and father, had antisocial personality disorders. The fathers were directly interviewed and the study determined that when a father is absent there is an increased rate of antisocial behavior among children (Pfiffner, McBurnett & Rathuz, 2001 p.359). It was apparent that a father leaving the home resulted in a lower socioeconomic status thus pushing the child into a harsher environment. Having one parent in the home, reduced supervision, thus allowing the child to get into trouble easier. In a single parent household, increased stress and responsibility led to lack of patience and the higher rate of the parent physically striking out at the child.

Physical abuse, on the part of the parent, has a great influence on the child’s antisocial behavior as well. A study, conducted by Kirchner (1998), surveyed 807 mothers about their children, (ages 6 - 9 years) and their behavior over a few months. The study determined there was correlation between spanking a child and antisocial behavior. The mothers were asked how many times they had spanked their child in the past week. Out of the 807 children, 451 were not spanked at all, 160 were spanked once and 114 were spanked twice, while 82 were spanked more than three times. It was concluded that spanking has a significant effect on antisocial behavior (Kirchner, 1998 p.798). Two years after the initial evaluation was done, another was taken and it was deduced that the higher level of spanking initially, led to the higher score on the antisocial behavior scale. For instance, boys of European decent had a higher frequency of being spanked and developing antisocial behavior. It was determined at the end of the study, that the more a child is spanked, the longer its negative effects will last. How a parent punishes his child is an important factor in the child’s future behavior.

In an article we read title“The Psychology of the Obsessed Compulsive Killer” highlighted certain characteristics that may lead to a person killing. The first common characteristic that was found was inadequate socialization, along with sexual identity. There was also a long history of physical and sexual abuse among serial killers. It was also shown that these serial killers came from social disadvantages such as: parental abuse, rejection, violence and low socioeconomic status. The criminal acts were determined by their personality, which in turn is influenced by the etiological factors. “Gacono (1991) found that serial killers often suffered from depression, conduct disorders as children and has disorders about attachment” (Lowenstein,1992 p.30).

The infamous serial killer Ted Bundy, was described in a case study by Moes, as a murderer who was extremely organized and mutilating in nature. His family history also displayed an absentee father and unnurturing mother. His parent’s relationship ended in divorce. There were many other red flags about his pragmatic behavior. Jeffery Dahmer another serial killer displayed a great amount of anger when raping his victims then chopping them up and eating them. He had no control of his impulses and allowed them to govern his actions. Lastly, he had no respect for authority.

There has been much research done comparing the relationship between antisocial behavior and criminal activity. A 5 year study conducted by Desau, Lam and Rosenheck (2000), focused on homeless people with mental disorders. Men and women, in one group were divided up based on the presence of three or less delinquent behaviors. The other group had more than three delinquent behaviors. The subjects were asked to report any arrests over the last two months. These arrests were classified into 3 categories: major, minor and substance abuse crimes. In addition, they were asked to complete a survey that had childhood risk factors for antisocial behavior. These included spending time in foster homes, physical, emotional or sexual abuse. The overall score on the family instability scale was factored in as well. The scale counts the number of traumatic events that occurred in a child’s life before 18 years of age. For example, living in a single parent home, having low socioeconomic status and moving several times (Desau, Lam & Rosenheck, 2000 p.328). The scientist examined current risk factors like formal education, age and race and the number of days worked in the last 30 days. It was determined that males who were African American or Hispanic,with little formal education and in increase in drinking, had a higher rate of psychosis and depression. They also had higher rates of family instability. Overall, there was a higher rate of conduct disorder (a persistent pattern of antisocial behavior) in the sample. 55% of the male and 40% of the females had conduct disorders. 791 subjects reported arrests for minor offenses while 197 were arrested for major crimes and 148 people were arrested and charged with crimes dealing with substance abuse.

The study determined that males who reported having a conduct disorder were 1.61 times more likely to report a minor crime, 2.59 times more likely to have been arrested for a major crime and 3.23 more likely to have been arrested for a substance abuse crime (Desau, Lam & Rosenheck, p.328). This pattern was also similar for women. It was determined that a childhood history of conduct disorder increased the likely hood of being arrested for a major crime 1.71 times, 1.43 more likely to be charged with a minor crime and 1.86 times, more likely to be charged with a substance abuse crime (Desau, Lam & Rosenheck, p.329). It was also determined that the arrest rate for people that are homeless with mental disorders is significantly higher than the national average. Most of the arrests in this population were minor crimes due to poverty and no shelter, though people who reported more than 3 conduct disorder symptoms were likely to get arrested for all three categories. Lastly, adolescent behavior problems led to increase arrests in adulthood. This data also proved that early conduct disorders was a contributing factor to adult homelessness.

A study done comparing the relationship between antisocial behavior and criminal activity was administer by Hodgins and Cote (1993). They thought that there were two different categories of criminals, one having a history of APD ( antisocial personality disorder) with criminal activity from childhood. The other group had no history of APD or criminal activity. He studied 456 male that were incarcerated. They were given the Diagnostic Interview Schedule and their criminal past was determined by Correctional Service of Canada. Of the 456 subject, 107 were diagnosed with a major disorder , 71 of them also were diagnosed with APD. When reviewing the data, 71% of those with APD stated they had juvenile records. While only 28% of the group without APD reported juvenile records. 92% of the APD group admitted they stole property and 59% vandalized.While only 44% and 8% of the other group committed those crimes. It was determined that on the average, those with diagnoses of APD had a history of antisocial behavior and reported an average of 8-10 crimes, while the other group only reported an averageof 2 crimes (Hodgins & Cote, 1993 p.157-159).

A study by, Babinski, Hatsough and Lambert (1999) examined if diagnoses of hyperactivity or conduct disorder in children, could be a predictor for criminal activity. This study was done in two phases. The first part was conducted in 1974 to identify children with hyperactivity or conduct disorders. They were identified through three methods- teachers, parents and their doctors. In 1992, the scientist went back to gather follow up data on theiroriginal subjects. 230 of the original subjects, now adults, participated in the second half of the experiment. The adults reported their criminal activity in means of the What’s Happening Questionnaire. There were 13 different crimes on this inventory and they were clumped into three categories for evaluation: public disorder, property crimes and crimes against people. The subject official arrest record was also obtained. It was determined that conduct problems and hyperactivity were significant indicators of increased arrest rates. In the category of crimes against people, it was shown that only conduct problems were correlated with arrest rates. This proves that the most dangerous criminals are those with early childhood conduct problems (Babinski, Hatsough & Lambert, 1999 p.349-350).

INTERVENTION/TREATMENT

The increase of antisocial behavior and violence by children and adolescence has recently prompted scientific studies on the prediction and prevention of antisocial behavior. Several studies have found that antisocial behavior is relatively stable over time. Youth and adolescents who exhibit antisocial behavior tend to lead to problems, such as criminal behavior in adulthood. Identifying youth who exhibit antisocial and violent behavior and intervening in all aspects of the youth’s life, may prevent the individual from following on a path that leads to adult criminality and violence.

The problem with identifying effective treatments for antisocial behavior is that multiple individual problems may be present as well as frequency, intensity and onset of theseproblems. Progress is being made in identifying effective treatments and among these treatments, we researched three that have demonstrated long term reductions in criminal activity and violence.

The first treatment approach, multisystemictherapy (MST), focuses on empowering the family and youth by providing them with the skills and resources needed for effective treatment to enhance the possibilities of individuals to control their own lives. One aspect of MST treatment effectiveness, is the understanding of all etiocological factors associated with antisocial behavior and that antisocial behavior is multi determined with correlation to the individual, family, school and community.

For these reasons MST interventions are individually tailored to the youth, taking into account family, peers, school and community. Treatment goals are developed for the youths and parents and guardians, with intervention emphasizes family strengths and commitment. Preventative strategies are flexible and multifaceted, focusing on personal, family and academic issues of each individual. MST treatment provides home based and family focused services delivered in the real world (home, school and community) allowing the youths to stay in their natural environments. These home based services, with each individual having their own treatment plan, allows the use of specific family strengths to help attain treatment goals.

The major goals of MST are to empower parents with the skills and resources which they need to independently deal with adolescent and antisocial behavior. MST intervention works at removing barriers to effective parenting such as: parental psycho pathology, low social support, high stress and marital conflict. Also to improve parentingknowledge and to encourage affection and communication within the family. At the peer level, intervention is aimed to decrease antisocial with deviant peers and to increase association with pro-social peers, such as, church youth groups, organized sports groups, etc. Interventions such as these are best carried out by the parents or guardians who have daily contact with the youth. A therapist provides active support and encouragement for the parents, available to family 24 hours a day/seven days a week.“A strength of the MST approach is that it assumes accountability as the single point of responsibility for ensuring that the broad need of serious juvenile offenders and their families are

met” (Journal of American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 38(3) p.246.).

The most recent and comprehensive study of MST has been done by Borduin (1999). He examined the long term results of MST versus individual therapy (IT) on violent and other criminal activities of 200 serious juvenile offenders. The youth averaged 4.2 previous arrests. Multi agent and multi method assessment techniques were used before and after treatment. These assessments found “That MST was more effective than IT in improving key family correlations or antisocial behavior and in ameliorating adjustment problems in individual family members” (Borduin, 1999 p.246). “Results from a four year follow up of rearrested data showed that youths who receive MST were significantly less likely to be rearrested then youths who receive IT” (Bourdin p.247). The MST youths that were “arrested during follow up were arrested less often and for less serious crimes, also MST youths were less likely to be arrested for violent crimes after treatment” (Bourdin, p.247). Through one study, it indicates thatMST is effective in reducing criminality and violence in serious juvenile offenders, decreasing the risk of criminal behavior as an adult. Success of MST is its comprehensive and flexible nature, taking into account the multi determinates of antisocial behavior and addressing each determinate individually.

There are many challenges which exist when it comes to the treatment of antisocial behavior in youths because of the wide range of symptoms they display. When evaluating the child, you have to take into consideration other factors of the child’s life (family, academics and socioeconomic). Research has found that “parents and family characteristics are fundamentally related to antisocial child behavior” (Kazdin, Siegel, Bass, 1992 p.733).

The second treatment approach, problem solving skill training therapy (PSST) is cognitively based and focuses on the individual child. “ Problem solving training, PSST focuses on the child’s cognitive processes (perceptions, self-statements, attributions and problem solving skills) that are presumed to under lie maladaptive behavior” (Kazdin,1987 p.193). PSST emphasizes on the way a child approaches different situation, stressing the importance that the youth selects an appropriate behavior for everyday life. Focus isn’t on the “outcome or specific behavioral acts that result, but on the thought process that lead to these acts” (Kazdin p.193). The youth is taught how to solve interpersonal problems with a step by step approach. They give self-instructionsto themselves to solve problems, and utilize structure tasks which includes games, role playing, academic activities and stories. Over time, the cognitive problem solving skills are increasingly applied to real-life situations.

There has been limited research in the use of PSST with clinically referred conduct disorder samples. Other studies have shown, though, that children who receive cognitively based treatments for aggression issues have shown a change in their behavior. These changes are viewed morein terms of statistical data but little physical change, so the children are still not in normal range of social behavior. PSST has not been proven to be the most beneficial treatment, but there are some positive aspects to it. PSST is linked to the decreased of antisocial behavior and has been shown to be effective in children with mild antisocial behavior issues. PSST also allows for variation in the way treatment is administered and emphasizes that developmental differences of the child are factored inwhen executing a course of treatment.

The third treatment approach, parent management training (PMT) “refers to procedures in which parents are trained to interact differently with the child, to promote pro-social behavior” (Kazdin p.190). The difference with this treatment to the others discussed, is that treatment is conducted primarily with the parents, who implement what they learn into the home. Parents are trained to identify and deal with problems in new ways. Parents learn social-learning principles and techniques such as positive reinforcement, mild punishment, negotiations, etc. The goal of this treatment is to develop specific skills in the parents and to have the parents apply these skills to their children’s antisocial behavior.

PMT has been used in many studies for children with behavior problems that ranged in severity. Patterson (as cited in Kazdin1987) conducted a study with 200 families with the children ranging in age from 3-12 years old. These children had aggressive issues. The effectiveness of the treatment was accessed by parents and teachers reporting on how the child was behaving. Observation were done in the home and school. It has been shown that PMT reduces problem behavior to the point that you can no longer detectthem. The use of PMT has been shown to have long lasting benefits. PMT does not only benefit the child who is being treated but also the siblings and other close family members. The length of treatment influences how long and how effective PMT is. The longer the child is treated, the longer and more intense the effects of PMT have on that child and their family. PMT is also a very easy treatment to implement because manuals are readily available. There are some problems with PMT. PMT is very demanding on parents and requires a lot of time and dedication. Lastly, PMT may not work for some children because they do not have a parent who is willing to assist in treatment.

While research continues to determine to what extent treatments have on antisocial behavior, “few treatments have actually documented change with clinically referred antisocial youths”(Kazdin, Siegel, Bass p.733). “Among the available treatments, PSST-cognitively based problem solving skill training and PMT-parent management training (PMT) are particularly promising” (Kazdin, Siegel, Bass p.733-734), but “evidence is still far from complete.”

Research has begun to show that PSST and PMT would be more effective if they were combined. A child-focused treatment, such as PSST, may beeffective but if parenting practices and interactions that contribute to child dysfunction are not addressed, then improvement will be hindered. “Because of their combined and complementary foci, we expect PSST and PMT to lead to more marked, pervasive, and durable changes in antisocial behavior”(Kazdin, Siegel, Bass p.734).

Research has indicated that there is a relationship between antisocial behavior and academic performance among students. Poor academic performance is related to frequent andpersistent offenses committed by children. Resistance to commit offenses, have been seen by those children with high academic performance. Educators trying to understand the relationship between the two have been faced with many challenges. For instance,educational programs designed to treat these conditions, tend to separate the antisocial behavior from the academic achievement. Often treatment is focused on modifying the characteristics of the child and not identifying the climates in which academic failure and antisocial behavior emerge. “This means that if we wish to change the child we must alter the interactional dynamic between the environment and not merely change selected cognitions or characteristics of the child (e.g) his or her attitudes and beliefs. Programs that attempt to modify a child’s attitude, for example will do little to alter the family, school.....that encourage his or her antisocial behavior and academic failure” (McEvoy & Welker, p.5).

School climate consists of the attitudes, beliefs, values and norms that shadow instructional practices and levels of academic achievement. Effective high achieving schools have common characteristics such as high expectations of achievement perceived by the student, a shared missionamong staff and administration and a safe environment to learn. Positive influences are bestowed on the students, despite conditions in the home, social status, religion or race. Schools viewed with low achievement and high levels of antisocial behavior, often rely upon expulsion and suspension. These forms of punishment usually leads to the lack of commitment to teachers, administration and therefore attributes to the lower levels of academic achievement. Affirming interpersonal relationships and opportunities for all to achieve high academic levels, reduces antisocial behavior and encourage higher learning in the student.

Children can benefit from intervention at school as well as at home, giving continuous

reinforcement about proper behavior and social interaction. It has been shown that a joint

intervention approach between home and school has been extremely effective. It may be hard to have a parent participate in school intervention because of negative experiences encountered while they were inschool. It is imperative that the school make the parent feel welcomed and involved in the decision making for the child’s course of therapy. School and parents should not only look at decreasing the negative antisocial behavior of a child, but also reinforce the positive

social behavior.

The U.S. Public Health Service designed an approach system that involves different types of intervention that could be executed in the classroom. The approaches are primary, secondary and

teritery. Primary is imprecated to prevent only problem behavior from occurring. This is done

through school wide rules, teaching the student conflict resolution skills. The school also requires high expectation of their students academics. The secondary approach is used for students who exhibit problem behavior, but not of extreme severity. The last approach is reserved for those withsevere issues. Both the secondary and tertiary are time consuming, costly, intrusive and powerful. Before any child receives these other treatments they need to have a functional behavioral assessment done. Though this treatment approach has never been fully implemented in the school, it has the potential to have positive effects on the overall climate

and well being of the school.

CONCLUSION

“Well-developed antisocial behavior patterns and high levels of aggression evidenced early in a child’s life are among the best predictors of delinquent and violent behavior years later” (Sprague & Walker (2002), as cited by Fagan(1996). Based on our research, there is a definite link between criminal tendencies and antisocial behavior in children. Studiesindicate that how parents treat their children and the environmental factors that surround the child at home, school and community, contribute to the development of antisocial behavior. It has also been shown that single family homes with low socioeconomic status have a higher risk of developing antisocial behavior. The longitudinal studies we reviewed, track children through adolescents and adulthood, and it was shown that higher rates of criminal activity among offenders were those with a history of antisocial behavior. Early childhood intervention, such as MST, PMT, PSST treatments, have shown to be effective methods in reducing the amount of aggressive and violent behaviors. Intervention needs to be implemented in all aspects of the child’s life such as home, school and community, in order for treatments to be effective.

REFERENCES

Babinski, Leslie M; Hartsough, Carolyn S; Lambert, Nadine M. (March 1999). Childhood conduct problems, hyperactivity- impulsivity, and inattention as predictors of adult criminal activity. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 40 (3) p. 347-355.

Barton, Charles M. (March 1999). Multi systemic treatment of criminality and violence in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38 (3) p. 242-249.

Desi, Rani, A; Lam, Julie; Rosenheck, Robert A. (June 2000). Childhood risks factors for criminal justice involvement in a sample of homeless people with serious mental illness. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 188 (6) p. 324-332.

Henggeler, Scott W.; Cunningham, Phillippe B,; Pickrel, Susan G.: Schoenwald, Soja K. (Feb 1996). Multisystematic therapy: An effective violence prevention approach for serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Adolescence, 19(1) p.47-61.

Hodgins, Sheilagh; Cote, Gilles. (1993). Major mental disorder and antisocial personality disorder: A criminal combination. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 21 (2) p.155-160.

Kazdin, Alan E. (September 1987). Treatment of antisocial behavior in children: current status and future directions. Psychological Bulletin, 102 (2) p.187-203.

Kazdin, Alan E; Siegel, Todd C; Bass, Debra. (Oct 1992).

Cognitive problem-solving skills training and parent management training in the treatment of antisocial behavior in children. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 60 (5), p.733-747.

Kirchner, Jeffrey T. (2/15/98). Childhood spanking and increased antisocial behavior. American Family Physician, 57(4) p.798.

Lowenstein, Ludwig F. (Winter 1992). The psychology of the obsessed compulsive killer. Criminologist, 16 (4) p.26-38.

Pfiffner, Linda J; Mcburnett, Keith; Rathouz, Paul J. (October 2001). Father absence and familial antisocial characteristics. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29 (5) p. 357-368.

Siegmann, Aron W. (1966). Father absence during early childhood and antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71(1) p.71-74.

Sprague, Jeffrey; Walker, Hill. (Spring 200). Early identification and intervention for youth with antisocial and violent behavior. Exceptional Children, 66 (3) p.367.